Bitcoin (BTC)

It’s pretty clear that very few people involved in Bitcoin have the slightest understanding of markets. Whether it’s Bitcoins market, the block space market, etc - there are people who built themselves a level of influence without the slightest understanding of how markets work and now confuse themselves as rule makers - this is both hilarious and sad to watch. I’m certain if there was even a 1st grade understanding of markers we would have never seen BIP110 as anything other than the attack on our markets that it is. The fools driving this fork wanna talk about data carrier limits as if the markets have already told us that’s the critical issue. Then they make fun of Keynes for being driven by animal spirits and write books about how there’s no true value signal. Builders and governors cannot coexist in an emerging market. The first wave of suicidal governors is about to discover this. Decentralization is a bitch - nearly none of you are capable of leadership there. Keep learning before you FAFO

BIP110 currently has about 0.5% hash rate signaling. If it activates at just 0.5%, blocks would take ~32 hours each. The first difficulty adjustment (2016 blocks) would then take roughly 7.5 years. So if they want to continue at that point, EDA hardfork.

BIP-110 is a proposal to change Bitcoin's rules to block "spam" data, like images and tokens used by Ordinals and Runes. The goal is to keep the blockchain from getting bloated and to keep transaction fees low for regular money transfers. However, the proposal is highly controversial and overwhelmingly opposed by the Bitcoin community. Here is the quick breakdown of why it failed: It breaks things: Experts warn it could accidentally freeze normal users' funds and break existing crypto wallets. It acts as a censor: It decides which transactions are "good" or "bad," which ruins Bitcoin’s core rule of being neutral and open to everyone. It does not work: The rules are easy for developers to bypass, meaning it would not actually stop the spam anyway. Adam Back (CEO of Blockstream) and almost all major miners are strongly against it. Miners completely rejected it, and it officially failed to get their support in July 2026, meaning the proposal is functionally dead.

Bitcoin is Digital Energy. https://t.co/6j1RasOjs5

Bitcoin is Digital Energy. https://t.co/6j1RasOjs5

#### The way this is being rushed is a red flag. None of this is being rushed. Peter Todd initially proposed this change 2 years ago (in https://t.co/RbxEXppELy). My email to the mailing list was on April 17th (https://t.co/kmKY5hjYXA). It received some amount of discussion in the following days and went silent for about a week until Peter Todd opened the pull request implementing the change to the Bitcoin Core Github repository on April 27th. The pull request did not get merged (in fact it was now closed), but even if it did it would have taken another 5 months before the change is released to Bitcoin users and probably about a year before it gets widely adopted on the network. Bitcoin Core does not rush changes. Although the proposed change would have close to no consequence for Bitcoin users not taking advantage of `OP_RETURN` outputs, it is no exception. #### This is making changes for the sake of making changes when nobody asked for this. The proposed change was motivated: it intends to remove a perv